Both Mozilla and Google have expressed concern over Windows 8. Microsoft's next big operating system release restricts access to certain APIs and technologies browsers need - only making them available to Internet Explorer. Looking at the facts, it would seem Mozilla and Google have a solid case - coincidentally, the responses on the web are proof of the slippery slope we're on regarding ownership over our own machines.

Joking aside, someone made a comment along the lines MS has no monopoly on ARM ... well monopoly is not based on hardware, rather it is based on the marketshare. While rotten fruit is fairly popular with certain segments of population, it is far from establishing a monopoly in terms of market share. For this reason alone, there is no possibility of legal action, even when their (rotten fruits) actions and policies are really rotten. MS, even with somewhat less agressive actions and/or policies, gets more scrutinized because it is a repeat offender AND indeed has a monopoly when it comes to desktop OS.

Someone else tried to, again falsely portray rotten fruit as a champion of colaboration and open standards when the opposite is true. rotten fruit and open standards are 3XPi removed.

Thom I am willing to settle out of court, cause I can't afford a lawyer. It seems that rotten fruit is driving prices for legal represantation wayyy to high

The MS/DOJ case specified "deskop OSes for X86 processors" as the market in question, in order to rule out Macs as competition to Windows (since Macs ran on PPC at the time).

When it comes to antitrust law suits, the plaintiff can declare the market to be whatever they want, and can narrow it enough so that the product in question has a monopoly in that narowly defined market, as long as the judge goes along with it. The DOJ could've gone all the way and declared "Windows-compatible OSes" to be the market if they so chose, and the judge agreed.

Speaking of the "Fruit" company, I think it could easily be argued that they do indeed have a monopoly in "tablet computing devices". They CERTAINLY have a larger share in that market than Windows ARM tablets have. So if MS abusing its position by not allowing 3rd party non-Metro or hybrid-Metro apps on Windows ARM devices, then Apple is being way more abusive by not allowing non-webkit browsers on iPad, since iPad has orders of magnitude larger marketshare than Windows ARM (at least, I predict that will be the case once Windows ARM tablets are rleased, and will be the case for the foreseeable future afterward).